~ Fides, Scientia, et Pertinacio

Variations Within the Kind

“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.” Science, July 17, 1981, p. 289

As we covered in “What is Evolution?”, the one scientifically observable event from which all of the definitions for “evolution” derive are actually not examples of evolution, but rather variations within the kind, which is unfortunately mis-nomered–Micro Evolution.

Darwin, sailing on the HMS Beagle, reached the Galapagos Islands. There, he observed fourteen different types of finches. He concludes reasonably that they had a common ancestor.

I agree. It was a bird.

He then makes this incredible leap in logic:

“Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”

So Darwin observes that there are fourteen different types of finches and his conclusion is that corn and whales have a common ancestor?

Variations do happen but:

1. They have limits.

Farmers have been breeding pigs for a long time. Do you think they will ever produce a pig as big as Indiana?

Roaches become resistant to pesticides after a while. Do you think they’ll ever be resistant to a sledgehammer?

I bet there’s a limit.

2. They produce the same kind of animal or plant. That is not evolution.

3. The information for the variation was already present. No new information is added, just scrambled information. You may get big dogs and little dogs, but you don’t get dogs that fly or that are pink.

4. The gene pool of the new variety is more limited than before. Therefore, it is less likely to adapt to future changes. (not more likely). For instance, Chihuahuas cannot produce Great Danes.

5. Genetic information was lost not added.

Therefore, even the one observable example of changes in nature disproves the possibility of one animal ever becoming another kind of animal, most compellingly, because this would mean a smaller gene pool with genetic data lost, not gained or added. Evolution, once again, remains a falsely pathetic explanation of life and the observable universe.